Perfection doesn’t always lie at the Skyline; Time for a recalibrated perspective for Urban Architecture

“The Majesty of growth can’t just be measured by its peaks.” 

Anonymous

One doesn’t need to become a bibliophile to discern and appreciate the underlying logic behind this quote. Progress has many yardsticks, but it is never said that reaching the clouds is the only one. Yes, I am talking about the modern cities of today and the obsession that everyone has with going higher and higher.

Verticality, in terms of urban architecture, was an invention born out of necessity, as American cities, at the end of the 19th century, found themselves inundated by a flood of immigrants from war-torn Europe and other shores. Since then, the very genesis of what is meant to be a skyline has gone through many rounds of transformation and evolution. So much so that, unfortunately, it has become the guiding standard for anyone who wants to assess and evaluate an urban community.

Of course, there is no denying the fact that the glittering carpet of lights adorning the stars, from Mumbai to New York and Hong Kong, has and will always conjure up a million possibilities. But can cities like New York, Mumbai, or Dubai be defined and restricted to only that? Are the snake-like spires of concrete, glass, composite, and steel the only point of reference to use when opening up discussions about a city’s livability or vibrancy? Or do other factors count? For example, livability, affordability, access to urban transit, a thriving culture, openness in terms of ideas, significant flexibility in terms of moving across classes and hierarchies, and opportunities for personal and professional growth, amongst others.

If one threshes out approaches from an analytical standpoint, one will see no dearth of either debates or literature, where ‘skyscrapperness’ is elevated into a new cornerstone of successful and sustainable urban development. The new narrative goes like this; vertical expansion is the only antidote to the entire gamut of challenges that the urban development landscape faces. But I prefer to digress from that because while having skyscrapers and mile high buildings is important, it can’t be the only prism through which all urban development problems can be perceived, simplified, or solved.

There is indeed a very important reason why I believe blindly adopting a vertical growth strategy could be counterproductive when it comes to realizing the truly smart and livable cities of today and tomorrow. Cities, or any broad space, for that matter, inherently evolve to encourage community, communication, engagement, and interaction. As a living space, it sort of facilitates the near continuous exchange of ideas, perspectives, and opportunities while opening doors to impactful convergences whenever possible. The very concept of a high-rise or skyscraper is antithetical to that, as it takes people away from the ground, creating a ‘cubiclised’ culture where people remain isolated from one another. It also makes the urban environment around us much less human and natural, making one lose touch with basic soft skills and the sense of complexity and nuance required to navigate cluttered and interconnected realities.

Also, cities grow to not only aggregate material capital but social capital as well, in terms of connections, networks, groups, etc. But a city filled with ubiquitous high-rises works against this by reducing possibilities for chance encounters and propinquity between people. As people shift to a more ‘cove”-based’ existence, the psychological proximity between one another increases, leading to a culture where conflict, not conversation, becomes the new norm. A very typical example of this could be Downtown Tokyo, where it has been found that many often lead an almost ‘hermit-like’ existence, often not talking to anyone for a span of more than 24 hours.

Also, creating an urban growth discourse pivoted around skyscrapers is inherently very unequal, leading to tones of rather aggressive and apparent gentrification with benefits for no one. Because the costs of development in high-rises are so high, affordability loses its position as a primary USP as everyone strives to maximise their value. To add to all that, the whole mythology around the ‘perfect’ view means that stakeholders generally articulate solutions that only cater to specific price points. This, in turn, creates significant barriers to inclusion, giving rise to a very siloed urban experience for key demographic profiles and preventing the genesis of a unified spirit and ethos that generally define a city’s distinctiveness and greatness.

All in all, while obviously, for the reasons of space and the planet, going high is an option that can’t be ignored, it can’t and shouldn’t be the only way forward. Sustainable, vibrant, and viable living spaces in urban contexts can also be realized horizontally. By incorporating smart mobility, energy-efficient, and passive building techniques with a clear focus on enhancing key ambient elements, as well as developing integrated spaces that focus on all-round living, from work to recreation, we can definitely build more resilient urban spaces without unduly harping on gaining that overtly glamorous skyline. Again, it is always important to note that when it comes to space, we need to move beyond our current perspectives and embrace a more circular, holistic, and nimble mindset.

Growth may not always be spectacularly high, but it should add substance and effect a positive change for the better. And this holds true, not just in terms of a more individualized slant, but also in terms of urban development.

Mumbai, or New York, just didn’t become great due to its towers; it became famous because of its vibes, culture and those only emitted from the ground.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *